[tcrlaf]

“Where’s the coalition?
Where’s the proof?
Where’s the U.N. Resolution?
Where’s the Congressional approval?
Where’s the sense of the American people?
Cowboy!”

You’ll note how quickly we’ve gone from “Obama must bypass Congress because of the Obstructionist Republicans!”, to “Obama must bypass the United Nations because of Obstructionist Russians!”

[nathanbedford]

We conservatives should be careful how we frame our arguments opposing military intervention in Syria.

I have publicly stated on these threads that I was wrong in supporting the Iraq war but that does not mean that the United States must get a UN resolution in order to wage war. This is what former president Jimmy Carter is quoted as saying in a companion thread; that if the United States were to bomb Syria without a UN resolution that act would be illegal. Nonsense! The United States is not required to seek United Nations approval to wage war.

We should never permit ourselves to be maneuvered into a position in which we explicitly or tacitly support that notion.

The President of the United States, however, is constitutionally required to seek a declaration of war from Congress. I am willing in the nuclear age when there may only be minutes to activate countermeasures against a missile strike to permit the president to act against an imminent threat. I think the 30 day provisions of the present law are reasonable but I concede that there is nothing in the Constitution authorizing this formula.

There is a danger in conservatives echoing the arguments of lefties like Obama and Biden from years ago merely to point out they are hypocrites. It is okay to point out their hypocrisies but it is not okay to adopt their assumptions about, for example, securing approval from the United Nations.